Write decision event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that logging occurs, without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or ledger specifics. The term 'decision event' is undefined, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. It is efficient but very sparse; it could include parameter hints without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. The agent lacks understanding of what constitutes a decision event, how to fill in required fields (e.g., toolName, actionType), and the overall ledger context. Sibling tools like 'check_booking_action' suggest a domain, but the description doesn't tie them together.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds nothing about any of the 11 parameters (e.g., agentId, allowed, reasons). Without parameter explanations, an agent cannot correctly populate fields beyond what the schema names imply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool logs a decision event to the ledger. It differentiates itself by noting that most decision tools write their own events, positioning this tool for direct logging, which provides specific verb+resource and sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: for agents that want to log an action directly, and implies that if other decision tools handle logging, this tool is unnecessary. It gives clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.